Was Mirai Nagasu underscored at the 2010 Olympics?
- Thread starter christinaskater
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
OT, but finally! Here's Mirai and Adam Rippon's take on Davis/White's Bollywood OD! 
:thumbsup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AkHkKhaEpA&feature=share
:thumbsup:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AkHkKhaEpA&feature=share
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Country
-
I agree with this. And imo Mirai should have at the very least been in 4th after the SP. Her SP was magical and skating early hurt her marks a little. Still 4th at the Olympics overall was an excellent achievment for her first major Senior competition!
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
At the very least? Meaning that you think fairly she could be higher?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Country
-
OT, but finally! Here's Mirai and Adam Rippon's take on Davis/White's Bollywood OD!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AkHkKhaEpA&feature=share
That was fun to watch! I'd love to see a singles skater (maybe even Mirai!) skate to that music in an SP!
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Country
-
Is that so hard to conceive? I would have been fine with Mirai winning bronze. And yes I think that would have been fair-had she received the scores she deserved in the SP. That being said I'm happy Joannie won the bronze and very pleased with Mirai's 4th place finish at the Olympics. As I stated earlier it was an excellent achievement.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
I don't even think Nagasu deserved to win Nationals, so yes, that is hard to believe. Her choreography and interpretation are considerably behind the top skaters (I'd place Suzuki and Lepisto ahead of her in that regard for sure as well) and Rochette was gorgeous during her SP. I think I'd buy Nagasu winning bronze overall, even disagreeing with it, but after the SP? No way.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
On paper there is much to criticize -- even to be irate about -- in this way of judging.
But in reality, it is hard to see how it could be otherwise, Certainly the skaters know that the competition begins the moment they step onto practice ice (if not before). Even practice costumes and make-up make an impression, good or bad. The top skaters know how to "perform" their practices.
It would be possible to ban judges from watching practices. I'm not sure that would be preferable.
It would mean that some skaters would already be known quantities to judges who have judged them before, and others would be completely unknown to some or perhaps all the judges. Allowing them to become known during practices at least levels the playing field somewhat.
For a skater who plans to do something unusual/unexpected (whether connecting two moves one right after another in a way that would be bad if a judge looks down to mark the score for the first one at the wrong moment, or say a triple axel in a field where everyone else is doing doubles), they're probably better off if the judges know what to expect.
Under 6.0, you wouldn't want, say, a judge who expects that 2A, 3T out of steps, and 3Lz+2T combo is state of the art for ladies' SP jump content and give 5.7s to the first skater who completes that, when half the field is going to be trying harder solo jumps and triple-triples and one or two might be trying 3A.
With IJS, knowing what technical content to expect is less of an issue for the judges. But knowing how good the best skaters might get in terms of the various PCS would be important. Knowing in advance what kinds of transitions or patterns on the ice to expect could help in being alert to them in competition and more acurately scoring the Transitions or Choreography or even Skating Skills component (e.g., was there multidirectional skating or was it all just circling around counterclockwise to set up jumps?).
Depending on the type of event (e.g., at Nationals where there are novice and junior competitions taking place as well, or events where one judge is assigned to both pairs and ladies, for example) judges may be so busy judging other events that they don't have time to sit and watch many practices.
In any case, it's important that judges don't try to slot the skaters in their minds beforehand, but just to get an idea of what they're each capable of. Dafoe's description of the process certainly allows for being surprised on the day.
It would mean that some skaters would already be known quantities to judges who have judged them before, and others would be completely unknown to some or perhaps all the judges. Allowing them to become known during practices at least levels the playing field somewhat.
For a skater who plans to do something unusual/unexpected (whether connecting two moves one right after another in a way that would be bad if a judge looks down to mark the score for the first one at the wrong moment, or say a triple axel in a field where everyone else is doing doubles), they're probably better off if the judges know what to expect.
Under 6.0, you wouldn't want, say, a judge who expects that 2A, 3T out of steps, and 3Lz+2T combo is state of the art for ladies' SP jump content and give 5.7s to the first skater who completes that, when half the field is going to be trying harder solo jumps and triple-triples and one or two might be trying 3A.
With IJS, knowing what technical content to expect is less of an issue for the judges. But knowing how good the best skaters might get in terms of the various PCS would be important. Knowing in advance what kinds of transitions or patterns on the ice to expect could help in being alert to them in competition and more acurately scoring the Transitions or Choreography or even Skating Skills component (e.g., was there multidirectional skating or was it all just circling around counterclockwise to set up jumps?).
Depending on the type of event (e.g., at Nationals where there are novice and junior competitions taking place as well, or events where one judge is assigned to both pairs and ladies, for example) judges may be so busy judging other events that they don't have time to sit and watch many practices.
In any case, it's important that judges don't try to slot the skaters in their minds beforehand, but just to get an idea of what they're each capable of. Dafoe's description of the process certainly allows for being surprised on the day.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ As an amateur observer who can barely tell -- sometimes -- what jump the skater just landed, I view the duties of a figure skating judge as something requiring superhuman powers of observation and expertise.
I think the risk of "seeing what you expected to see" in the actual performance is far outweighed by the chaos that would result from not having any idea of what you should be looking for. A thousand details go by in the blink of an eye. In my opinion, the judges would be at a terrible disadvantage if they had to judge programs and skaters cold each time out.
Viewing practices and pre-slotting skaters has potential for abuse, especially if the judges spend a lot of time "chatting" with each other about their preconceptions and observations. But if the judges are crooks, we are up the creek anyway. So on balance, I think the more information a judge is armed with, the better.
I think the risk of "seeing what you expected to see" in the actual performance is far outweighed by the chaos that would result from not having any idea of what you should be looking for. A thousand details go by in the blink of an eye. In my opinion, the judges would be at a terrible disadvantage if they had to judge programs and skaters cold each time out.
Viewing practices and pre-slotting skaters has potential for abuse, especially if the judges spend a lot of time "chatting" with each other about their preconceptions and observations. But if the judges are crooks, we are up the creek anyway. So on balance, I think the more information a judge is armed with, the better.
Without a canoe, let alone a paddle! I absolutely agree, Math. And I agree with what gkelly says about how judges' going to practices helps level the field a bit for new skaters. At least the judges see a first-timer and can say, oh, there's one to keep an eye on.
Gkelly: Thanks very much for your post number 60. You were able to provide both the quote from Jackson's book on the slotting, or grouping method, but also info on a Canadian judge applying similar technique, and in the proper context. I fully agree that slotting/grouping can be a valid method, if applied carefully. I noted in the current question over Nagasu in Vancouver, that the judges adjusted her PCS from 10th (tie) in the short to 6th in the long. My complaint is they didn't adjust her short program score as it was completed, when she exceeded the expectations of some judges. By adjusting her PCS in the long only, it was already too late for her to be in medal contention. If judges use the grouping method, they must be quick enough to make adjustments for the program as it is skated.
I don't think you have taken a position on the question in this thread. You are a wealth of knowledge and I would like to hear your opinion.
I don't think you have taken a position on the question in this thread. You are a wealth of knowledge and I would like to hear your opinion.
I know I took notes on the Olympics as I watched on TV, but I can't find them.
I wasn't there in person, I haven't seen most of these skaters in person and certainly not all in the same competition, so my video-mediated impressions about how their skating compares may not be accurate.
My sense from TV was that Kim had the best security and power, Asada the softest knees and corresponding sense of effortlessness, and Rochette the most precision and the most detailed program. All else being equal, I expected those three to medal, unless they fell apart or maybe Kostner happened to put it all together, and I thought the medal results were just right based on how everyone skated.
I remember being thrilled for Nagasu that she did so well and pulled up to fourth. I didn't expect her to place any higher than that and was surprised (and happy for her) when she won the short program at Worlds.
I wasn't there in person, I haven't seen most of these skaters in person and certainly not all in the same competition, so my video-mediated impressions about how their skating compares may not be accurate.
My sense from TV was that Kim had the best security and power, Asada the softest knees and corresponding sense of effortlessness, and Rochette the most precision and the most detailed program. All else being equal, I expected those three to medal, unless they fell apart or maybe Kostner happened to put it all together, and I thought the medal results were just right based on how everyone skated.
I remember being thrilled for Nagasu that she did so well and pulled up to fourth. I didn't expect her to place any higher than that and was surprised (and happy for her) when she won the short program at Worlds.
I have to disagree that all three of those performances were the same. Actually, Mirai's Olympics SP performance is my least favorite of the three. I re-watched it just now to confirm my previous impression, and that is that Mirai was tight in the Olympics in a way that she wasn't at US Nationals or Worlds. Others in this thread have pointed out the same. She hid her nervousness well and executed everything, but she didn't really perform as well she did in those other competitions. The bloody nose at the end didn't help.
At the other two competitions, she had that extra bit of competitive fight/spark in her that made those performances sparkle (and she ended up first in both). At the Olympics, which was the biggest competition of her career (she had never been to senior worlds at that point), she was understandably a bit more nervous and didn't skate quite as freely as she could have.
Mirai is hardly the first skater to receive lower PCS score than they may deserve due to a lack of reputation with the judges. It's not fair to Mirai, but it's the same thing every skater faces, and many skaters had it even worse. The PCS scores for eventual Olympic champion Yu-Na Kim at 2006 Skate Canada, the short program, were absurd. She absolutely walloped the field in TES (thanks to a sparkling performance that was very near the performance she gave at 2007 Worlds), but her PCS ranked an absurd 5th in the field of 12.
http://www.isuresults.com/results/gpcan06/SEG003.HTM
Coincidentally, Joannie Rochette knows a thing or two about getting lowballed at the Olympics, since that's what happened at the 2006 Olympics to her. In the LP, Joannie had the second highest TES after gold medalist Shizuka Arakawa, and I thought her performance absolutely was the second best overall. Watching it on tv, she was a breath of fresh air on a night of splatfests. Her PCS was just 5th. But even had she been scored differently in the LP, it may not have changed anything because she was too far back in the SP, and I don't remember her SP being anything memorable. Like Mirai in 2010.
http://www.isuresults.com/results/owg2006/SEG004.HTM
The 2006 Olympics is when I really started liking Rochette and thus I was glad to see her become a stronger competitor over the following quad. I thought she did enough at the 2010 Olympics to deserve her bronze, which made enough for the fact that I felt that she deserved more (though not necessarily a medal) at the 2006 Olympics. And the same goes for Mirai, while I think she deserved a little more at the 2010 Olympics--not necessarily a medal--I was happy for her performance, and I hope she becomes a stronger competitor over this quad, and goes and gets a medal at the 2014 Olympics. Hopefully in a way that doesn't open the results up to debates about whether or not a younger skater with a lesser reputation deserved it instead. Cuz that seems to be a cycle.
^ Jaylee, A nice, thoughful and insightful post. I pulled out all 3 short performances and watched them again. I agree with you in part, the Olympic short was the least enjoyable to watch of the three. You say the performance may have been due to tightness, or a lack of competitive spark. Part of the impression may be because her Olympic short was skated early, and their was no excitment in the crowd for this early performance. I looked at a couple shots from the Nat's short, and you see her firing out of a jump with speed and determination. I look for a similar point in the Olympic performance, and I see her back skating away from the camera. I look at the world's SP, and I see her coming out of a spin, jump toward the sky with a sparkle in her eye and attack the next element. I look for a similar point in the Olympic program, and we have a high angle view from a distance, and whatever spark is or isn't there, is not conveyed to the viewer. Only in the final I spin with the bloody nose do I get a real sense of the competitiveness and intensity. I think the spark was there, it just wasn't conveyed in the TV broadcast. Even if you are correct, is this lack of spark that you see worth a 7 point deduction, 63 in Vancouver short compared with 70 at Nats and at Torino? I don't think so.
You made some great point about Joannie's performance in 2006. I have it on tape and I will take another look at that.
You made some great point about Joannie's performance in 2006. I have it on tape and I will take another look at that.
